Wednesday, 4 April 2012

The phrase coined, I believe, by William Hague during his short sojourn as Leader of what was then also not the Conservative Party.

Earlier this evening William Hague tweeted:

"Two weeks left to apply for a career in #EU civil service this year. We encourage more Brits to join EU institutions bit.ly/GTygkz"

From that website we learn that the EU civil service needs to employ highly motivated, talented and ambitious individuals - and, unsaid, people who will be required to work for the good of the EU, as do EU Commissioners have to agree so to do.

Some items of news today cause me concern where our democracy is concerned and, as an introduction to this post, I quote from a post of yesterday:

"One of the tasks that we clearly have is to rebuild trust in our political system. Yes, that's about cleaning up expenses, yes, that's about reforming parliament, and yes, it's about making sure people are in control and that the politicians are always their servants and never their masters."David Cameron, first speech as Prime Minister, May 11, 2010.

I trust readers will forgive the repetition that follows but it cannot be repeated enough. Presently, under our system of representative democracy what in effect we do is hand the car keys to a collection of learner drivers who have no idea of the rules of the road and subsequently turn them loose. In other words, between general elections, we allow a group of politicians to act as dictators who then impose laws on us, laws we may or may not agree with, whilst accepting we have no recourse to stop those laws.

Readers will be in no doubt that I favour a system of government known as Direct Democracy - it is the only system of which I know that does, firmly, put the people in control of their own destiny - both national and local. It has been suggested, in comments on my blog, that people can't be bothered with the 'minutae' of democracy - to which I counter that if they can't, then they may as well immediately submit themselves to slavery and bondage, because that is the aim of politicians - coupled with the fact that it would save us a shed load of money funding the political elite in achieving their ultimate aim. Consider, democracy can only work when people claim it as their own because the present system only works as it involves choosing your next set of dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear.

If it is the will of the people that the status quo should remain, ie representative democracy, then should we not press for a change to 'delegatory democracy' which would at least force politicians to vote according to their constituents majority view, rather than their view (Burke's law). If the people are to retain a status of being the master, with politicians being no more than servants, then it becomes necessary that the people must have the ultimate option of saying 'No' - and in that regard I can but refer readers to my post of yesterdayand the views expressed therein.

That democracy is important to us all and that it is therefore important we all take an interest in our system of democracy is underlined by a quote from Robert Hutchins:

"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."

Tuesday, 3 April 2012

"One of the tasks that we clearly have is to rebuild trust in our political system. Yes, that's about cleaning up expenses, yes, that's about reforming parliament, and yes, it's about making sure people are in control and that the politicians are always their servants and never their masters."
First speech as Prime Minister, May 11, 2010.

So if politicians are always the people's servants and never their masters, by what right does he deny the people their say on EU membership? By what right does he act as a dictator, imposing policies on the people - policies for which they never voted? (The Coalition - our programme for government)

"I joined this party because I believe in freedom. We are the only party believing that if you give people freedom and responsibility, they will grow stronger and society will grow stronger."
Speech to Conservative Party Conference on 4 October 2005.

Some freedom when considering Cameron is intending to monitor people's private emails and telephone conversations. Some freedom when he chains us to membership of a political union which dictates what freedoms we may be allowed.

"I want you to come with me. We'll be tested, and challenged, but we'll never give up. We'll never turn back. So let the message go out from this conference, a modern compassionate Conservatism is right for our times, right for our party - and right for our country. If we go for it, if we seize it, if we fight for it with every ounce of passion, vigour and energy from now until the next election, nothing and no one can stop us."
Speech to Conservative Party Conference on 4 October 2005.

For someone who will never turn back Cameron has performed a great number of 'U' turns - in fact he could adapt Thatchers phrase, amending it to: 'U'turn if you want to, I've already turned and turned and turned and....... If modern, compassionate Conservatism was right for our times and right for our country, the country obviously didn't think so - and that nothing and no one could stop him was confirmed as yet more political spin.

"My favourite political quote is by Disraeli: he said the Conservative Party should be the party of change but change that goes along with the customs and manners and traditions and sentiments of the people rather than change according to some grand plan."

As Cameron's Conservative Party is not that of Disraeli it follows that it does not believe in the customs, manners, traditions and sentiments of the people - as we can see - but does continue with adherence to some grand plan (EU/NWO/Agenda21) - also as we can see.

"I think the prospect of bringing back grammar schools has always been wrong and I've never supported it. And I don't think any Conservative government would have done it."
BBC Sunday AM, 15 January 2006.

So if politicians are always the people's servants and never their masters, by what right does he deny the people their say on the type of education they want for their children?

Cameron is an example of everything that is wrong with politics today and the sooner we rid ourselves of such effective ineptitude the better. Whether he and his ilk go voluntarily, or go forcibly, I care not - but go they must!

It had not been my intention to post under this heading so soon after that of the first, however a news item today voided my original intention. Apparently today Boris Johnson had a slight difference of opinion with Ken Livingstone, in the process calling him a 'procreating' liar. Andrew Gilligan, Daily Telegraph, posts on the lies it is alleged Livingstone told, including 'evidence' to show that they were indeed lies - who is right matters not in this case.

For so long have politicians lied to us or, in the words of Alan Clark, been 'economical with theactualité', we have become inured to that which they tell us - especially when they are campaigning and/or presenting us with manifestos. This is illustrated by Cranmer in his post today on the subject of the surveillance of emails and telephone calls; a post in which he recalls the manifesto promises made by both the Tory and LibDem parties in the 2010 General Election, coupled with that subsequently issued by the Coalition. If we go back to 2005 further examples of broken promises were illustrated in this post from January 2009.

Some hold that it should be possible to legally challenge political manifestos, yet where this has been attempted courts have held that an elected member ‘ought’ to give considerable weight, when deciding whether to implement policies put forward in a pre-election manifesto. However elected representatives must not treat themselves as irrevocably bound to carry out pre-announced policies contained in election manifestos. Moreover The Court of Appeal held that to hold that the pre-election promises bound a newly elected Government could well be inimical to good government. It was one thing to say that an administration properly and morally ought to have regard to its pre-election promises. It was another to say that it must have regard to them and a yet further thing to say that it must ordinarily act on them. The law went nowhere near that. The Court of Appeal emphasised that it did not wish any encouragement to politicians to be extravagant in their pre-election promises, but when a party elected into office fails to keep its election promises, the consequences should be political and not legal. (source) So we see that pre-election promises are not legally enforceable, which begs the question why do politicians make pre-election promises that they cannot keep? This may be because it is easy to promise dramatic changes to the law when not in Government, but more difficult to make them work in practice. Also, when elected, the party may have more information available to them and realise that the pre-election promises are not very practical. On that last point I would contend that if the required research had been carried out properly then politicians would be aware of the point about practicality. This is especially so where this country's membership of the European Union is concerned and when politicians promise action in an area that is a competence of the EU.

However - bearing in mind the foregoing - the question has to be repeated, namely why cannot a political manifesto be legally challenged - it is, after all, a contract twixt a political party and those they are asking to elect them. In all 'unions' involving people and their relationship with one another two words must be included in those relationships: 'honesty' and 'truth'. Without those two 'basics' any relationship is bound to be fraught with suspicion - which is probably why politics has reached the nadir it has.

Obviously I know not what the 'Old Swan Manifesto' will produce and whilst I am a firm advocate of direct democracy I am only too aware that that system is not everyone's cup of tea. However, if we are to have 'Referism' in respect of the need for taxation, then should we not have that same ideal where the introduction of policies is concerned? Should not there be a statutory period between a Parliamentary Bill passing its final reading and receiving Royal Assent - one that allowed the people to challenge said Act, through the use of referenda, prior to it becoming law?

Monday, 2 April 2012

From Wikipedia we learn that the Chartists - or to be correct, one faction - called for six basic reforms to make the political system more democratic. Those six reforms were:

universal male suffrage;

a secret ballot;

no property qualification for members of Parliament;

pay members of Parliament (so poor men could serve);

constituencies of equal size;

annual elections for Parliament.

They accomplished the first four with the fifth planned for implementation in the near future, assuming of course our home grown version of Hitler doesn't get overthrown. Were the Chartists to be reborn today, one imagines them looking round and observing that (paraphrasing a line from Star Trek) it's life, but not as they envisioned it.

That the first four points have been emasculated beyond recognition by the political class for their own ends - especially points three and four, but I digress - it seems to me that further 'basic reforms' are called for if democracy in this country is to survive.

In that respect - and apropo point six - one of the reasons for the American Revolution was the principle of "no taxation without representation". Nowadays, under representative democracy, we have taxation but do not have representation in that those that represent us, do not; they take what is not their money, but ours, without our permission nor with any constraints on what it can be spent.

Point six of the Chartist's demands was for annual elections to Parliament, something which, had we a form of Direct Democracy in this country, would not be necessary. However, every year our political elite present what they laughingly term 'their budget' in which they inform us on what our money - that they intend extracting from us - will be spent and subsequently, amongst themselves, decide whether 'their budget' is 'acceptable' or not. As it is our money should they not, in the first place, ask us? Should it not be us that decide the question of acceptability? Should it not be us that decide, 'Nope' go back and do your sums again?

To a certain extent one can argue that 'no taxation without public approval' should be one of any new reforms that is required for a new democracy. This question does, to a certain extent, form part of what should be discussed on talkconstitution.net and it could also be argued that it should form part of any new constitution that website will be proposing, hopefully in the very near future.

Is not the idea of servant asking master on what the master's money can be spent not 'Referism' put into practice?

In common with the public perception of politicians as devious, untruthful, hypocritical people of questionable parentage, William Hague does not disappoint with his comment piece in today's Daily Telegraph. By maintaining that the Falkland Islanders have the right to determine their own political and economic future, Hague denies to us in Britain that which, if push comes to shove, he would ask us to fight for.

It will not have escaped the attention of readers that when it comes to defending our nation, politicians are most noticeable by their absence from the front line of battle. Politicians continually inform us that they want our respect yet seem to forget that it cannot be learned, purchased or acquired - it can only be earned; and so far they have earned squat-diddly.

All our politicians speak of governing us and governing for the many not the few, the latest example being Ed Miliband while launching his party's local manifesto for the forthcoming elections in May. According to Politics Home he stated that he will govern for the whole country, not just the wealthy few. As with all statements issued by the political elite, Ed Miliband has blatantly lied to the British public.

Ed Miliband can no more govern this country - as cannot any other party leader - than can you or I, as he and they have been party to ceding that governance to Brussels through our membership of the EU. Even if we were to accept that Miliband could govern this country as a sovereign nation, through our membership of the EU he would be governing not just for the whole country, but also for the wealthy few - in Brussels.

EU Commissioner's pay scales are specified in this document and their basic monthly salaries are fixed at 112.5% of the top European civil service grade. This works out at €19,909.89. The President is paid at 138% (€24,422.80), Vice Presidents at 125% (€22,122.10) and the High Representative at 130% €23,006.98. Viewed in 'real' money those figures convert to £16,529.29 (£198,351.48 per annum); £20,275.14 (£243,301.68 per annum); £18,368.90 (£220,426.80 per annum); and £19,103.68 (£229,244.16 Per annum). There are further allowances on top of this figure including a residency allowance and an entertainment allowance. Now, there are 18 Commissioners, 7 Vice Presidents, Ashton and Barroso - you go do the maths.

Just saying - not that Miliband's lies will be mentioned in the MSM of course..........

The front page of today's Daily Telegraph is plastered with the news that Tory MPs have 'rounded' on Cameron and Osborne, being angry over the budget and the fuel fiasco. According to the article MPs are demanding (i) overhaul of the 'Downing Street Machine; (ii) the ending of Osborne's dual role as Chancellor and head of Tory political strategy; (iii) the appointment of a senior MP as full time party chairman; and (iv) that the ministerial reshuffle should be used to promote more MPs from working class and northern backgrounds. All this and more is called for in order that the Tory party can reconnect with voters and thus retain their confidence. In the editorial the newspaper warns that voters have no time for political manoeuvring citing the 'granny tax', extension of VAT on pasties and the fuel fiasco.

Nowhere in the article, nor the editorial, do the words 'truth' or 'honesty' appear; nowhere in the article, nor the editorial, is it made plain that our politicians lie to us on a daily basis; nowhere in the article, nor the editorial, is it made plain that politicians of all hues act and behave as an elected dictatorship - all that those quoted are concerned with is how to save their party and (unspoken) their careers.

And politicians strive to reconnect with the electorate? The only way that politicians will reconnect with the electorate is for the entire present edifice of politics to be torn down and rebuilt - and to that end a movement will hopefully begin.

Democracy Excrement, whether portrayed as a rose, a tree or a bird, remains just that - excrement!